i

SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT

AN EVALUATION OF RECENT

TRIALS ON “ENVIRONMENTALLY-

FRIENDLY” MOORINGS (EFMs), TO

INFORM THE DEVELOPMENT OF

POLICY IN NEW SOUTH WALES

(NSW)

NATHAN OUTERBRIDGE

This report has been prepared by an undergraduate student and may

not have been corrected according to the comments of University

staff. The report should be cited in the following format:

Outerbridge, N. (2013). An evaluation of recent trials on “environmentally-

friendly” moorings (EFMs), to inform the development of policy in New

South Wales (NSW). Unpublished Third Year Undergraduate Report. School

of Environmental Science and Management, Southern Cross University,

Lismore.

ii

An evaluation of recent trials on

“environmentally-friendly” moorings

(EFMs), to inform the development of

policy in New South Wales (NSW)

Prepared by Nathan Outerbridge

(Bowman, 2008)

Integrated Project prepared as partial fulfilment of the requirements of

the Bachelor of Environmental Science and Management (Natural

Resource Management).

Southern Cross University

2013

iii

2013

Copyright Page

I, Nathan Outerbridge, consent to this report being made available for

photocopying and loan, provided that my work is fully acknowledged and that

the granting of such a licence in no way inhibits me from exercising any of

my exclusive rights under the Copyright Act 1968. I understand this licence is

granted in the interests of education and research and that no royalties are

payable. 07/06/2013.

___________________________________

(Signed and Dated

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to particularly thank my co-supervisor Sarah Fairfull from Fisheries

NSW, for providing her time and assistance to guide me with my integrated

project. Thank you also to the other members of Fisheries NSW and the NSW

Department of Primary Industries who helped me out. I would like to also thank

my supervisor Daniel Bucher from Southern Cross University (SCU) who

provided me with feedback on my project.

Thank you to all the participants who took part in completing and returning the key

stakeholder questionnaire, without you contributions this project would not have

been possible.

v

ABSTRACT

The scouring and fragmentation of seagrass meadows by traditional block & chain

moorings (BCMs) is an issue of great concern facing Australia. Approximately 50%

of seagrass meadows have been lost in NSW (Bowman, 2008); block and chain

moorings are not the major cause of this, however they do result in significant

habitat loss for juvenile fish and benthic fauna (Stewart & Fairfull, 2007), and

widespread fragmentation of seagrass meadows (Demers et al., 2013). Whilst

seagrass species such as Zostera and Halophila generally recover well after

disturbance, other species such as Posidonia australis, which has six endangered

populations in NSW, are very slow to grow and may take a long time to regenerate

(Demers et al., 2013). State Governments, including NSW, and the scientific

community, have recently conducted EFM trials to determine the feasibility of using

‘environmentally-friendly’ moorings as an alternative to traditional BCMs. Results

from the trials were generally very positive for EFMs, with seagrass recovery

occurring in most previously scoured areas; benthic fauna also recovered

(Gladstone 2010b; DEEDI, 2011; Gladstone, 2011; Demers et al., 2013). The

Seagrass Friendly Mooring (SFM) design proved to be the most reliable and

effective during the EFM trials; the Seaflex and EzyRider designs also produced

positive results in terms of seagrass recovery, however they were prone to more

technical issues; suppliers have worked to resolve these issues by refining the

designs (DEEDI, 2011). Cyclone moorings created significant scouring and

therefore the current design is unsuitable (Hastings et al., 1995; Demers et al.,

2013).

A questionnaire was developed for key stakeholders with the purpose of identifying

important issues and to plan the future direction of EFMs and a policy position in

NSW. Costs for EFMs can be reduced by increasing awareness about their benefits

and therefore uptake will rise, increasing Government support for the industry and

the creation an EFM policy position, introducing environmental standards for all

moorings and increasing suppliers and trained contractors. Technical issues can be

overcome through further design refinement, trials and increased maintenance.

Supply can be made more efficient by expanding the EFM industry, creating

competition, quicker responsiveness and increasing qualified contractors, and the

prevention of a monopoly. Stakeholders agree that EFMs are an effective

alternative to BCMs. A moratorium should be introduced through an EFM policy to

prevent the ongoing use of BCMs, with possible incentives to replace existing

moorings. Future trials should incorporate better communication with boating

stakeholders, increased control sites and BCMs, training of participants, EFM

strength testing, increased EFM sampling sizes and testing in new wind, wave and

light scenarios.

Keywords: Environmentally-friendly Moorings (EFMs), Block & Chain Moorings

(BCMs), Seagrass Friendly Moorings (SFMs), Seaflex Moorings, EzyRider

Moorings, Cyclone Moorings, Seagrass, Scouring, Trials, NSW Policy Position

vi

CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE 1 ........................................................................................................................... I

TITLE PAGE 2 ........................................................................................................................... II

COPYRIGHT PAGE .................................................................................................................. III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... IV

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... V

KEYWORDS ............................................................................................................................. V

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... VIII

1. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 IMPORTANCE OF SEAGRASS .......................................................................................... 1

1.2 STATUS OF SEAGRASS IN NSW ...................................................................................... 2

1.3 KEY THREATS – PAST AND CURRENT .......................................................................... 3

1.3.1 COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHING ................................................. 3

1.3.2 DREDGING AND RECLAMATION ......................................................................... 3

1.3.3 FORESHORE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 4

1.3.4 STORMWATER ......................................................................................................... 4

1.3.5 TRADITIONAL BLOCK & CHAIN MOORINGS ..................................................... 4

1.4 DESIGN AND COSTING OF BCMS ................................................................................... 6

1.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY MOORING DESIGNS ............................................. 6

1.5.1 SEAGRASS FRIENDLY MOORING SYSTEMS ...................................................... 6

1.5.2 EZYRIDER ................................................................................................................. 7

1.5.3 SEAFLEX .................................................................................................................... 8

1.5.4 ECO FRIENDLY MOORING ..................................................................................... 9

1.5.5 JEYCO MOORING ..................................................................................................... 10

1.5.6 CYCLONE MOORING ............................................................................................... 11

1.6 CURRENT POLICY ISSUES ............................................................................................... 12

1.7 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 12

2. METHODS .................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 TRIALS ................................................................................................................................ 13

2.3 TECHNICAL FACTORS, DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE .............................................. 14

2.4 COST .................................................................................................................................... 14

2.5 SEAGRASS RECOVERY .................................................................................................... 14

2.6 TARGETED INTERVIEWS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS ............................................. 14

3. REVIEW OF RECENT EFM TRIALS ........................................................ 16

3.1 MANLY COVE, NSW .......................................................................................................... 16

3.1.1 SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL DESIGN ....................................................................... 16

3.1.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL ................................................ 17

vii

3.2 JERVIS BAY, NSW .............................................................................................................. 17

3.2.1 SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL DESIGN ...................................................................... 17

3.2.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL ................................................ 18

3.3 SHOAL BAY, NSW ............................................................................................................. 18

3.3.1 SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL DESIGN ....................................................................... 19

3.3.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL ................................................ 19

3.4 PITTWATER, NSW ............................................................................................................. 20

3.4.1 SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL DESIGN ....................................................................... 20

3.4.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL ................................................ 21

3.5 MORETON BAY, QLD ................................................................................................. 22

3.5.1 SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL DESIGN ....................................................................... 22

3.5.2 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL ................................................ 22

3.6 ROTTNEST ISLAND ........................................................................................................... 23

3.6.1 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS FROM THE TRIAL ................................................ 23

4. DISCUSSION OF THE TRIALS...................................................................... 24

4.1 SEAGRASS RECOVERY .................................................................................................... 24

4.2 TECHNICAL ISSUES .......................................................................................................... 24

5. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES .................................................................. 26

5.1 COSTS .................................................................................................................................. 26

5.2 TECHNICAL ISSUES- INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................... 27

5.3 SUPPLY OF EFMS AND PARTS ......................................................................................... 28

5.4 SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF EFMS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BCMS ......................... 28

5.5 DESIGN ................................................................................................................................ 29

5.6 RECOVERY OF SEAGRASS .............................................................................................. 30

5.7 INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 30

5.8 LEGISLATION AND POLICY ON EFMS ........................................................................... 30

5.9 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO EFM TRIALS ................................................................. 31

6. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 33

6.1 COSTS .................................................................................................................................. 33

6.2 TECHNICAL ISSUES- INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................... 33

6.3 SUPPLY OF EFMS AND PARTS ......................................................................................... 33

6.4 SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF EFMS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BCMS ......................... 34

6.5 DESIGN ................................................................................................................................ 34

6.6 RECOVERY OF SEAGRASS .............................................................................................. 34

6.7 INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 34

6.8 LEGISLATION AND POLICY ON EFMS ........................................................................... 35

6.9 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO EFM TRIALS ................................................................. 35

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 40

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Key stakeholder responses.

List of Figures

Figure 1: The major parts of a traditional block & chain mooring.

Figure 2: Block & chain moorings showing chains dragging on the seabed and barren

areas where seagrass has been scoured.

Figure 3: SFM screwed into the seabed.

Figure 4: The major parts of an EzyRider mooring.

Figure 5: The elastic system of the Seaflex mooring.

Figure 6: The helix anchor of the Eco Mooring.

Figure 7: The Jeyco mooring system uses anchors to secure three chains to the seabed.

Figure 8: Shows the design of the ‘environmentally-friendly’ Cyclone Mooring.

Figure 9: Recent trials of EFMs which have been conducted in Australia.

Figure 10: Shows moorings located within Manly Cove, NSW.

Figure 11: Shows the location of Jervis Bay, NSW.

Figure 12: The five SFMs located within Shoal Bay, NSW

Figure 13: The locations where SFMs and BCMs were monitored within

the Pittwater Estuary, NSW.

Figure 14: The location and features of Rottnest Island, WA.

1

1 Literature Review

1.1 Importance of Seagrass – Nationally and Internationally

Seagrasses are one of the most important coastal habitats worldwide due to their richness

and ability to support a diversity of estuarine and marine fauna species, from all tropic

levels (Shafer, 2002; Biological Conservation, 2011; Demers et al., 2013). Scientists

conservatively estimate that the total area of seagrass worldwide is approximately

177,000 sq. km (Bostrom et al., 2006). From 1985 to 1995 there was an estimated loss of

12,000 sq. km worldwide due to anthropogenic impacts including commercial and

recreational fishing, dredging and reclamation, foreshore development, stormwater and

traditional block & chain moorings (Bostrom, 2006). In Australia, seagrass beds cover

approximately 51,000 sq. km and are the most diverse in the world with 38 species found

in coastal waters from a total of 66 species worldwide (Kirkman, 1997; McComb &

Dennison, 1999; Gladstone, 2009). This high diversity is due to the overlap of tropical

and temperate zones and geomorphic characteristics of the Australian coastline, which

provides large geographic regions for seagrasses to inhabit. There are also a high number

of species endemic to their bioregion; these are areas with unique natural features and

environmental processes (Zann, 1996; Curruthers et al., 2002).

Seagrasses provide numerous ecological services, including significant biodiversity,

production of fish stocks, stabilization of sediments etc. It is estimated that

approximately 40 times more animals are likely to occur in areas covered by seagrass

meadows compared with areas of bare sand (McKenzie, 2008). Many juvenile and adult

fish species use seagrass beds as nursery habitat, including recreationally and

commercially important fish stocks including perch, mullet, luderick, leatherjacket,

whiting, sweetlip, emperor, bream, snapper and tailor (Kirkman, 1997; Stewart &

Fairfull, 2007; McKenzie, 2008). Important commercial shellfish and crustacean species

also rely on seagrass as a key habitat; including prawns, rock lobsters, oysters and pearl

shells (McKenzie, 2008). The importance of seagrass as a key habitat is clearly evident in

the Gulf of Carpentaria, where a loss of approximately 183 sq. km of seagrass has

resulted in the loss of between 250 and 300 tonnes per year of the tiger prawn fishery

(Kirkman, 1997).

In relation to water quality and carbon sequestration, seagrass meadows contribute to

organic carbon production and storage, the cycling of nutrients, erosion control and

sediment filtration (Orth et al., 2006; Stewart and Fairfull, 2007). Seagrass plants have

strap-like leaves which help to impede suspended solids by slowing the flow of the water

(baffle effect) allowing the sediment to settle out (Kirkman, 1997; McKenzie, 2007;

Stewart and Fairfull, 2007). This results in improved water quality and clarity

(McKenzie, 2008). Seagrass meadows usually contain rhizome networks which help to

secure the underlying sediment and prevent its erosion, adding to improved water quality

outcomes (McKenzie, 2008). Without these rhizomes many beaches, channels and sandy

bottoms would be threatened by erosion (Kirkman, 1997). Seagrass is also an important

blue carbon sink because it is able to sequester and store carbon in its sediments and

biomass at greater levels than that of tropical forests, and for a much longer residency

period (Lawrence et al., 2012).

Seagrass meadows assist in the cycling of nutrients. After sediments have been trapped in

seagrass meadows the matted root systems of seagrass absorb nitrogen and phosphorous,

2

which helps to filter and buffer chemicals entering the ecosystem (McKenzie, 2007;

McKenzie, 2008). Without the presence of seagrass beds, these nutrients may concentrate

and result in algal blooms and reduced water quality in coastal areas (McKenzie, 2008).

Epiphytes often grow on the fronds of seagrass and they also filter the water quality

(Stewart and Fairfull, 2007).

The leaves, stems and epiphytes of seagrass are vital food sources for many marine

species (Stewart and Fairfull, 2007). When plant material and epiphytes become

discarded, they are usually broken up by bacteria and fungi, and the movement of the

waves, which provides food for flagellates and plankton (Stewart and Fairfull, 2007;

McKenzie, 2008; Gartner, n.d.). These microorganisms produce food for many juvenile

marine animals, such as fish, crabs, prawns and molluscs (Umwelt, n.d.; McKenzie,

2008). Detritivores form the base of the food web and seagrass is an integral part of their

diet (McKenzie, 2008), for example the commercially important western rock lobster

forages on seagrass detritus and plant material (McArthur et al., 2007). During storms old

leaves and epiphytes are removed and replaced with new ones; this high turnover

supports the replenishment of the food web (Stewart and Fairfull, 2007). Seagrass

meadows in the tropics are grazed upon by larger animals, including the dugong (Dugong

dugon) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (McArthur et al., 2007; McKenzie, 2008).

1.2 Status of Seagrass in NSW

Seagrass is currently protected in NSW under the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994

(FM Act). The FM Act states that marine vegetation, which includes seagrass, cannot be

harmed by a person without first seeking the authority of a permit that is issued by the

Minister (NSW legislation, 2012). The term ‘harm’ under Part 7 of the FM Act can refer

to “gather, cut, pull up, destroy, poison, dig up, remove, injure, prevent light from

reaching or otherwise harm the marine vegetation, or any part of it” (Fairfull, 2013).

Protecting ‘key fish habitats’, is one of the key objects of the FM Act. The NSW

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has defined these habitats in the Fisheries NSW

Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (2013), by

classifying fish habitats according to their sensitivity, with TYPE 1 considered highly

sensitive ‘key fish habitat’ (Fairfull, 2013). The TYPE 1 category includes Posidonia

australis (strapweed) and Zostera, Heterozostera, Halophila and Ruppia species of

seagrass beds >5m2 in area (section 3.2.1 of the Policy and Guidelines) (Fairfull, 2013).

The TYPE 2 category includes Zostera, Heterozostera, Halophila and Ruppia species of

seagrass beds <5m2 in area. Fairfull (2013) outlines the policies and guidelines that apply

to any activities that are likely to affect “key fish habitats” including seagrasses. The

NSW DPI encourages all proponents to firstly plan their activities around ‘key fish

habitats’, so that long term impacts are avoided. If key seagrass habitats cannot be

avoided, or it is impractical to make alternative plans, the damage should be minimized

to prevent long term damage, or offset to compensate for any permanent change.

Proposals that potentially harm seagrass meadows require approval from NSW DPI

(Fisheries NSW) under Parts 4 (integrated development assessment) and 5 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) unless they are regulated

under the State Significant Development or Infrastructure provisions of the EP&A Act

(Fairfull, 2013).

The seagrass Posidonia australis, which is known as strapweed, grows in the temperate

marine and estuarine waters of the lower half of Australia, and it is endemic to these

3

regions (Fairfull, 2013). The areas in NSW where Posidonia australis prefers to grow

include protected areas, such as coastal bays, estuaries and coastal lakes; regular tidal

flushing is an important requirement (Fairfull, 2013). Six populations of Posidonia

australis have been listed as “endangered” in NSW under the threatened species

schedules of the FM Act. These populations are located in Port Hacking, Botany Bay,

Sydney Harbour, Pittwater, Brisbane Waters and Lake Macquarie (FSC, 2010). They

have been listed due to a range of factors as outlined in the Fisheries Scientific

Committee’s Final Determination (FSC, 2010) including (briefly describe). Posidonia

australis is classified as TYPE 1 highly sensitive fish habitat by the NSW DPI in Fairfull

(2013), because once it has been removed from an area it rarely regenerates, or at an

extremely slow rate. Posidonia is more susceptible than other seagrass species because

individual plants develop very slowly, fruit and seeds are dispersed at low levels, and

meadows usually expand slowly (FSC, 2010). The rhizomes of Posidonia may only grow

a few millimetres per year in small vulnerable meadows, or in meadows that are larger

and more stable the growth can be up to 25cm a year (West, 2011). Research suggests

that the large established meadows in NSW, which are > 1 km2, may have taken decades

or even centuries to reach their current size (West, 2011). The NSW DPI will not usually

approve works if they harm Posidonia australis (Fairfull, 2013). Posidonia australis is

also protected in several marine parks and aquatic reserves, including Jervis Bay Marine

Park, Batemans Marine Park, Towra Point Aquatic Reserve, and Port Stephens-Great

Lakes Marine Park (FSC, 2010); however it continues to be threatened in NSW.

1.3 Key Threats – Past and Current

Historically the value of seagrass in Australia has largely been overlooked, and as a result

large areas of seagrass habitat have been destroyed; NSW has lost approximately 50% of

its seagrass meadows (Bowman, 2008). Threats include runoff from sediments and

nutrients, invasive species, diseases, physical disturbances (dredging and reclamation),

poor practice from commercial fishing, boating impacts (anchoring, propellers,

moorings), algal blooms and climate change (Zann, 1996; Orth et al., 2006; Stewart &

Fairfull, 2007; Gladstone, 2009).

1.3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fishing

Commercial and recreational fishing can threaten seagrass habitats if poor practice is

adopted. Seagrass can suffer physical damage from trawling and hauling gear, the

collection of wrack (dead seagrass) floating on the surface, boat propellers, moorings

and anchor damage (Carlo & McKenzie, 2011). Plants are also harmed as a result of

boats, vehicles, and human foot traffic (Carlo & McKenzie, 2011).

1.3.2 Dredging and Reclamation

Reclamation is a major threat to seagrass communities in NSW. It includes draining,

infilling, or clearing of land so that it can then be developed (Carlo & McKenzie, 2011;

NSW DPI, 2013). Reclamation often destroys aquatic habitats, such as seagrass, or

results in long term changes to tidal ranges, river flow, water quantity and quality (NSW

DPI, 2013). Dredging usually occurs to improve navigation in estuaries and rivers, to

alter the flow of water, to install pipelines and cables, and to gather required supplies of

4

sand and gravel (Carlo & McKenzie, 2011; NSW DPI, 2013). Seagrass meadows can be

threatened directly from dredging and indirectly through increased turbidity which

reduces the amount of sunlight that will reach the plants, limiting their ability to

photosynthesise (McKenzie, 2008; Carlo & McKenzie, 2011). The growth of seagrass

may also be affected by the increased turbidity and sedimentation, which can smother the

plants (Carlo & McKenzie, 2011; NSW DPI, 2013). Dredging can alter the tidal prism in

an estuary, therefore changing the environmental conditions which may limit the ability

for seagrasses to regenerate.

1.3.3 Foreshore Development

Foreshore development for the construction of infrastructure along the coast can involve

permanently clearing seagrass meadows (e.g. cables, pipelines) or indirect impacts (e.g.

shading from bridges, marinas, jetties) (Carlo & McKenzie, 2011; NSW DPI, 2013). The

development of coastal areas can result in increased runoff, sedimentation and

widespread pollution which will ultimately enter seagrass communities and affect the

plants and associated organisms (Bell et al., 2001; Carlo & McKenzie, 2011; NSW DPI,

2013). Increased waterway infrastructure can also lead to greater access and numbers of

boats and vehicles utilising coastal areas, affecting seagrass communities. Oil from these

can leak or be washed into waterways where it is toxic to seagrass and can limit growth

(McDowell et al., 2009; Carlo & McKenzie, 2011). Erosion will increase due to the

destabilisation of soil, which will increase turbidity and sedimentation (Carlo &

McKenzie, 2011).

1.3.4 Stormwater

Stormwater runoff, or runoff from industrial and urban areas, sewerage leaks or spills and

runoff from agriculture land, can result in high levels of nutrients entering the water

(McDowell et al., 2009). High nutrient levels affect the growth of seagrass by creating

algal blooms (McDowell et al., 2009). The algae will either be free floating, which

increases the turbidity of the water, or it can be epiphytic algae, which attach to leaves

and stems of the seagrass. The cumulative effect will be a reduction in the diffusion of

nutrients and gases to the leaves, increased shade, which will limit photosynthesis, and

there will be an increase in weight for the seagrass leaves (McKenzie, 2008; McDowell

et al., 2009). Toxicants, including herbicides and heavy metals such as lead, copper, zinc

and cadmium, can accumulate in sediments and bio-accumulate in the organisms which

inhabit seagrass meadows (Environment Protection Agency, 1998). Whilst concentration

of these toxicants has been shown to be low in the seagrass plants, seagrass communities

may be impacted indirectly (Environment Protection Agency, 1998).

1.3.5 Traditional Block & Chain Moorings

Permanent boat moorings are highly concentrated in the world’s embayments and

therefore they are considered one of the major causes of physical disturbances to seagrass

(Demers et al. 2013). Traditional block and chain moorings, illustrated in Figure 1, have

contributed to the decline of seagrass in Australia. Seagrass is damaged when the

slackened chain from the mooring drags along the seabed during low tide (Gladstone,

2009).This process over time tears seagrass out by the roots, which subsequently leads to

5

a scoured circular area where the chain has been dragging, shown in Figure 2. Benthic

fauna is also disrupted during this process (Bowman, 2008; DEEDI, 2011; West, 2011).

Undamaged seagrass meadows are able to absorb and regulate the energy of the current

and waves (Bowman, 2008). If a seagrass meadow is fragmented through continued

disturbance then it is much more likely to experience significant erosion and future loss.

Scoured areas will continue to expand down-current and combine with other barren areas

(Bowman, 2008). A number of environmentally friendly moorings (EFMs) have been

designed to overcome some of the issues associated with traditional BCMs.

Figure 1: The major parts of a traditional block & chain mooring (Alkira Marine

Services, 2013).

Figure 2: Block & chain moorings showing chains dragging on the seabed and barren

areas where seagrass has been scoured (Gladstone, 2009).

6

1.4 Design and Costing of Traditional Block and Chain Moorings

A basic traditional block and chain mooring, suited for most vessels, generally consists of

a 1 tonne concrete block, 3-6m of 35mm+ stud link ground chain, a 20mm custom

fabricated swivel, 2.5m of 16mm mild steel chain, a 24mm silver rope protected at both

ends by a heavy duty anti chaff plastic sleave, and a NSW Roads and Maritime Services

approved buoy and numbering with 12mm hook-up line (Bowline Marine, 2013).

Approximate prices for 2013 are:

Single Block mooring (vessels 18-32 foot) $935 inc GST

Double Block mooring (vessels 32-45 foot) $1485 inc GST

Fore & aft moorings (vessels 18-40 foot) $1540 inc GST (Bowline marine, 2013).

1.5 Environmentally Friendly Mooring Designs

1.5.1 Seagrass Friendly Mooring Systems

These moorings are screwed into the seabed via a screw helix or ‘auger’ (DEEDI, 2011;

On Water Maine Services, 2013; SEQ Catchments, 2013). Load spreaders are attached to

a central mooring post and are located just below the surface of the seabed. The top of

the mooring post is attached to a swivel head and shock absorber, which is connected to a

hawser rope, which joins to the surface buoy (DEEDI, 2011; On Water Maine Services,

2013; SEQ Catchments, 2013). The goal of this design is to ensure that there is minimal

contact with the seafloor and seagrass, so that dragging and scouring is avoided

(Seagrass-Watch, 2010; On Water Maine Services, 2013; SEQ Catchments, 2013) as

demonstrated in Figure 3. A small area of the seabed may be disturbed during

installation, however after the mooring is fully installed the movable arm of the seagrass

friendly mooring (SFM) is designed not to touch the seabed at any stage of the tide, to

protect and allow for the recovery of seagrasses and benthic fauna (Seagrass-Watch,

2010). For 2013, installation and supply costs in NSW are approximately $2,500 + GST,

and the annual service cost is approximately $300 per year + GST (Maslen, D. Seagrass

Friendly Mooring Designer/ Supplier, 2013, pers. comm.).

7

Figure 3: The SFM is screwed into the seabed to prevent dragging and the movable arm

does not drag on the seabed at any stage of the tide, this prevents scouring of seagrass

around the mooring (SIMS, n.d.).

1.5.2 EzyRider

The base of this mooring is either a concrete block/s or plate (the plate is driven into the

seafloor with steel pins) (DEEDI, 2011; EzyRider Mooring, 2013). Three chains are

connected to the base, which creates a tripod; known as the Offset Anchor System. The

Anchoring System is attached to a single coil chain that is link proof. The chain is then

connected to the mooring buoy using a steel shaft (DEEDI, 2011; EzyRider Mooring,

2013) as shown in Figure 4. Strong rubbers are positioned from the bottom of the buoy to

the base of the shaft, which absorbs movement and keeps the chain from dragging on the

seabed; known as the Advanced Mooring Technology (DEEDI, 2011; EzyRider

Mooring, 2013). Pricing for the system is currently not available.

8

Figure 4: The major parts of an EzyRider mooring. Seagrass is able to grow around the

base of the mooring because it is fixed and the chain is kept of the seabed (EzyRider

mooring, 2013).

1.5.3 Seaflex

Seaflex moorings are designed with an elastic system which will secure pontoons and

buoys in position (DEEDI, 2011; Seaflex AB, 2013) as shown in Figure 5. The system

has been designed to resist corrosion in marine environments, resulting in less

maintenance over time and should not scour or damage seagrass meadows and disrupt

benthic fauna (Seaflex AB, 2013). Seaflex moorings will adjust to variations in tides and

wave action by slowly stretching (becoming elongate) and then returning to a more

constant and smoother movement (DEEDI, 2011; Seaflex AB, 2013; Whitsunday

Moorings & Marine Constructions, 2013). This progressive resistance to any changes in

wave action occurs both in the lateral and vertical planes, the design also includes a

pretention (Seaflex AB, 2013). This mooring can withstand any weather conditions

(Seaflex AB, 2013). The size of the Seaflex mooring required is determined using the

JFlex software developed by the designer, which includes analysing water level

variations, wind, waves, current, depth and air resistance caused by boats (Seaflex AB,

2013). Navigation buoys are more likely to remain in position with a Seaflex mooring

compared with a traditional mooring (Seaflex AB, 2013). Prices start from approximately

$530 (400 EUR) for small units and increases for larger units. Installation is

approximately 10% of the total project cost (Brandt, L. Sales/ Supplier, 2013, pers.

comm.).

9

Figure 5: Shows how the elastic system of the Seaflex mooring works by absorbing

energy in the water, and what the Seaflex mooring will look like once installed (Seaflex

AB, 2013).

1.5.4 Eco Friendly Mooring

The Eco Mooring helix anchor is designed and built in America and imported to

Australia (Waters Marine, 2013).This design has been tested in adverse conditions,

including the South Pacific and Iceland (Waters Marine, 2013). The helix anchor is

screwed into the seabed to prevent dragging even during severe storms (Waters Marine,

2013) as shown in Figure 6. The helix anchor is galvanized and can be fitted to most

bottom types. It has been engineered to withstand the force of an 800hp tug boat and can

hold up to 20,000 lbs. (Waters Marine, 2013). The rode of the eco mooring has an elastic

core, which will stretch in response to changing tides and wave motion. This rubber core

has an exterior multi strand rope as a failsafe (Waters Marine, 2013). The cost of an Eco

friendly mooring for 2013 is approximately $3000 + GST for most vessels (Waters, J.

Supplier, 2013, pers. comm.) This includes an anchor (1 ½ inch shaft), chain floats and

Eco-rode. Moorings for larger and smaller boats are also available (Waters, J. Supplier,

2013, pers. comm.).

10

Figure 6: The helix anchor of the Eco Mooring is screwed into the seabed, which

prevents the vessel dragging the mooring (BoatMoorings.com, 2013).

1.5.5 Jeyco Mooring

This design uses an anchor to secure three chains (this forms a tripod) (Jeyco, 2013); as

shown in Figure 7. Moorings are available for either recreational or commercial use and

they have been designed and engineered to cope with large storms and cyclones (Jeyco,

2013). Once secured to the seabed there shouldn’t be any dragging as a result of

variations in tides and wave motion (Jeyco, 2013); Pricing is currently not available.

11

Figure 7: The Jeyco mooring system uses anchors to secure three chains to the seabed.

This design can withstand dragging in storms and cyclones, which protects seagrass

(Jeyco, 2013).

1.5.6 Cyclone Mooring

This design is similar to the Jeyco and EzyRider designs and consists of three chains

secured to the seabed in a tripod formation; this is shown in Figure 8. The three chains

are designed to prevent dragging on the seabed (Demers et al. 2013).

Figure 8: Shows the design of the ‘environmentally-friendly’ Cyclone Mooring (Demers

et al. 2013).

12

1.6 Current Policy Issues

There is currently no clear legislation or policy position in NSW on the use of EFMs.

Whilst the Fisheries Management Act 1994 provides for the protection of seagrass, there

is no legislative mechanism to make their use mandatory in or adjacent to seagrass areas

as an alternative to traditional block and chain moorings. The cumulative impacts of

traditional BCMs are becoming clearer to the scientific community and governments

worldwide. The NSW and Queensland Governments have recently conducted several

trials to determine the effectiveness of EFMs, and the feasibility of developing a policy

position to support their adoption in seagrass areas.

To date there has been no comprehensive review of the overall success of EFMs in

Australia. This project attempts to conduct such a review and to interview key

stakeholders to inform the development of a NSW policy on EFMs as an alternative to

traditional moorings.

The EFM trials to date have been carefully monitored in NSW and Queensland. Key

issues identified through these trials have included the need to examine the effectiveness

of EFMs over time, the installation cost, total costs including ongoing maintenance

compared to traditional moorings, maintenance period, record of successful operation,

ease of installation (NSW Waterways Authority, 2003). The trials in NSW have also

indicated that environmental conditions may limit the success of EFMs and seagrass

recovery in some locations.

1.7 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this report will be to evaluate the outcomes of recent “environmentally-

friendly” mooring trials in Australia, and to determine whether they can be an effective

alternative to traditional BCMs to improve seagrass protection and rehabilitation. The

outcomes will be used to inform the development of a NSW policy position on EFMs.

The objectives will include:

Identifying the importance of Australia’s seagrass

Highlighting traditional BCMs as a significant threat to Australia’s seagrass beds.

Determining whether EFMs are an effective alternative to traditional BCMs to

improve seagrass protection and rehabilitation.

Reviewing potential EFM issues, including technical aspects (design,

implementation and maintenance), environmental factors that may limit

effectiveness, costs and any potential liability concerns.

Interviewing key NSW stakeholders to determine their responses to the EFM

trials, any concerns and what will need to occur in the future before EFMs can

replace traditional moorings.

13

2 METHODS

2.1 Resources

Background information was obtained by searching the Southern Cross University

databases for environmental science and the Department of Primary Industries science

and research database. These were useful to obtain journal articles, books and reports

related to seagrass and trials of EFMs in Australia.

2.2 Trials

The report will examine recent EFM trials in Australia that have been undertaken at the

following locations:

Jervis Bay Marine Park, NSW,

Port Stephens, NSW,

North Sydney Harbour, NSW,

Pittwater, NSW,

Moreton Bay, QLD,

Rottnest Island, WA.

The major outcomes from each of these trials was investigated to identify whether EFMs

were effective in protecting and restoring seagrass, and to assess any issues identified

and documented during the trials. Trials which will be reviewed are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Recent trials of EFMs which have been conducted in Australia.

14

2.3 Technical Factors, Design and Maintenance

The reports from the trials were examined to determine what worked well and what

didn’t work well with each design and reasons why. Technical issues with each mooring

design and trial were documented. This involved checking the annual maintenance results

from each study, identifying areas of success, and noting component parts of EFMs that

did not perform well. The supply of parts for EFMs was investigated to determine

whether they are difficult to obtain compared with the ability of sourcing parts for

traditional BCMs. Trial data relating to the effectiveness of EFMs in extreme weather

events was analysed to determine how EFMs behaved, such as storms with strong wind

and wave action to determine whether they cope as well or better than traditional BCMs.

2.4 Cost

The cost of installing and maintaining EFMs compared with traditional BCMs was

documented where possible as this is likely to be a significant issue for boat owners if the

government adopts a policy position supporting their use in seagrass areas.

2.5 Seagrass Recovery

Each trial was reviewed to identify whether EFMs contributed to the protection and

recovery of seagrass. The effectiveness of each design was reviewed to determine which

designs had the best results. For example, was the seagrass able to recover at every trial

location? How did each of the NSW species of seagrass respond to the EFMs? Did some

respond better than others? The regrowth of the endangered population of Posidonia

australis in the trials was also examined.

2.6 Targeted Interviews with Key Stakeholders

A questionnaire was developed for key stakeholders, who are likely to be influential in

the development and adoption of a policy position in NSW. Stakeholders who responded

included:

Office of Boating Safety and Maritime

NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries NSW

NSW Department of Primary Industries – Port Stephens, Great Lakes Marine

Park

Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and

Cabinet

Hunter-Central River Catchment Management Authority (CMA)

University of Technology Sydney (UTS)

15

Queensland Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing

On Water Marine Services pty ltd

Seaflex Moorings Australia

The questions were developed from the analysis of the EFM trial reports from Australia

and discussion with Fisheries NSW habitat protection managers. A copy the letter sent to

the stakeholder participants and the stakeholder questionnaire are included in Appendix

1 & 2. The information recorded from the questionnaires will be used to identify

potential issues that may need to be addressed and resolved before a policy position can

be adopted on EFMs in NSW. Human ethics approval was granted prior to commencing

the survey.

16

3 REVIEW OF RECENT EFM TRIALS

3.1 Manly Cove, NSW (2010-2012)

3.1.1 Summary of the Trial Design

A total of 4 SFMs, 4 BCMs and 4 control locations were monitored (Gladstone,

2010a).

SFMs were positioned where old BCMs had been removed, shown in Figure 10.

SFMs and BCMs were located in Manly Cove East (Gladstone, 2010a).

3 controls were located at Manly Cove East and 1 at Manly Cove West (all had

similar environmental conditions).

The controls were used to represent natural variations in the characteristics

(Gladstone 2010a)

Final monitoring will take place in 2013 and the report is yet to be finalised

(Gladstone, 2012).

Figure 10: Shows moorings located within Manly Cove, NSW, and the diagram

highlights those moorings which are located directly on top of an endangered population

of Posidonia australis (NSW DPI, 2013).

17

3.1.2 Summary of the results from the trial

Mooring scours changed between 2010 and 2012 for both SFMs and BCMs; however a

consistent decline did not occur (Gladstone, 2012). Zostera capricorni growth within the

scours of the SFMs and BCMs did not differ significantly between 2010 and 2012.

Zostera capricorni leaf length was significantly shorter within the SFM and BCM scours

compared with the control sites (Gladstone, 2012). Posidonia australis was not found in

the former scours around SFMs or the scours around BCMs in 2010 and 2011; however it

was identified for the first time within the scour of 1 SFM and 1 BCM in 2012

(Gladstone, 2012). Halophila spp. was found at all scour locations and its cover did not

differ between the SFMs and BCMs, or in the surrounding seagrass beds. The total

percentage cover of seagrass within the scours of SFMs and BCMs was similar and both

mooring types had less cover than the control sites (Gladstone, 2012). Habitat

compositions of the seagrass beds around SFMs and BCMs did not differ, however they

were both significantly different to the control sites. Cover of sand was similar in the

scours of SFMs and BCMs; with both having more sand than the control sites

(Gladstone, 2012). There were no technical issues with the SFMs in 2010 and 2011. One

SFM was found to be malfunctioning in 2012 (the end of the arm was dragging in the

sand). A second SFM was on the verge of malfunctioning in 2012 as well (Gladstone,

2012).

3.2 Jervis Bay, NSW (2012)

3.2.1 Summary of the Trial Design

Seagrass density and cover surrounding each mooring type and in reference areas

were studied (Demers et al. 2013). This included:

o A reference area, a SFM and a BCM installed at two sites at Callala Bay,

the location is shown in Figure 11;

o A reference area and a cyclone mooring at three sites at Callala Bay;

o A reference area and a BCM at two sites at Bindijine Beach (Demers et al.

2013).

Reference areas for each site were located at least 10 m from existing moorings

over similar depths and conditions to the adjacent mooring(s). This reduced the

spatial variation in seagrass density and cover (Demers et al. 2013).

18

Figure 11: Shows the location of Jervis Bay, NSW, and the features around it (South

Coast NSW, 2013).

3.2.2 Summary of the results from the trial

BCMs consistently lacked seagrass around them during the trial. At 9m from the mooring

anchor, seagrass density and cover were similar to the reference area (Demers et al.

2013). Seagrass density and cover surrounding the SFM at Callala Bay and Bindijine

Beach were very similar to the seagrass growth at the reference areas at these locations.

Site 1 at Callala Bay had seagrass cover and density that were generally lower

surrounding the SFM than in the reference area (Demers et al. 2013). Posidonia density

and cover around the SFMs was very similar to that at the reference areas. The radius of

the scoured areas for BCMs extended out up to 9m. A small circular scar was present

around most of the SFMs at Bindijine Beach. This was approximately 10 cm in width

(Demers et al. 2013). Contact between the coupling and the substratum had created this

small disturbance. This was not observed at Callala Bay because the SFMs sat higher

above the substratum (Demers et al. 2013). The seagrass was recovering around some of

the SFMs. H. ovalis and Zostera spp., which are pioneer species, colonised areas that

were previously damaged (Demers et al. 2013). Large areas were cleared of seagrass at

all of the cyclone moorings. These areas were in the form of a “Y” shape, very similar to

the layout of the mooring. Most of these “Y” shaped scars extended 18m from the centre

of the mooring (Demers et al. 2013).

3.3 Shoal Bay, NSW (2008-2010)

19

3.3.1 Summary of the Trial Design

This trial included an investigation and review of the condition of seagrass beds

in December 2010 around five SFMs; shown in Figure 12. These were installed in

Shoal Bay, Port Stephens, in 2008 (Gladstone, 2011).

After inspection, all of the moorings appeared to be functioning properly

(Gladstone, 2011).

The scours in 2008 resulted from the former BCMs and could be clearly

identified as bare sections of sand around each SFM. In 2010 the boundary of

BCM scours could not be defined as a result of the growth of seagrass around

SFMs (Gladstone, 2011).

Figure 12: The five SFMs located within Shoal Bay, NSW (Gladstone, 2011).

3.3.2 Summary of the results from the trial

Monitoring in 2010 showed that the seagrass from 2009 was still present; however the

images showed new seagrass (mostly Zostera capricorni) in the former mooring scours

around three SFMs (Gladstone, 2011). In 2010 the boundary of the mooring scour was

difficult to define because the seagrass had grown significantly (Gladstone, 2011). The

total seagrass cover and cover of sand were not different between former mooring scours

20

and surrounding seagrass beds in four out of five moorings (Gladstone, 2011). There was

a significant “mooring x position” interaction for mean length of Z. capricorni leaves, as

mean leaf length differed at two moorings, and did not differ at three moorings

(Gladstone, 2011).

A significant “mooring x position” interaction occurred with Posidonia australis, as

average leaf length in the former mooring scour was less than the surrounding bed at one

of the moorings, but at another mooring there was no difference (Gladstone, 2011). Only

two moorings were tested because of the limited amount of Posidonia australis. The

mean percentage cover of Z. capricorni did not differ between the former scours and the

surrounding seagrass bed. Cover of Halophila spp. was not different between the former

mooring scours and the nearby seagrass beds. The moorings were inspected and all

appeared to be functioning properly (Gladstone, 2011).

3.4 Pittwater, NSW (2009-2011)

3.4.1 Summary of the Trial Design

Summary of the trial design:

The effectiveness of SFMs was assessed by monitoring seagrass growth annually

for three years (2009-11). A total of six SFMs and six BCM moorings were

monitored. The report for 2011 was not available (Gladstone, 2010b).

Monitoring took place at Mackerel Beach (six moorings), Palm Beach (four

moorings), and Sandy Beach (two moorings); shown in Figure 13 (Gladstone,

2010b).

21

Figure 13: The locations where SFMs and BCMs were monitored within the Pittwater

Estuary, NSW. Site A is at Mackerel Beach, Site B is at Palm Beach and Site C is at

Sandy Beach (Gladstone, 2010b).

3.4.2 Summary of the results from the trial

Maps showed that the size of mooring scours around SFMs decreased; this trend did not

occur around BCMs (Gladstone, 2010b). The cover of Zostera capricorni increased

between 2009 (~1 percent cover) and 2010 (~2 percent cover) (Gladstone, 2010b). No

significant changes occurred with BCM scours. In 2010 there was a four-fold increase in

the mean length of Zostera capricorni leaves around SFMs (Gladstone, 2010b). Leaf

length in the mooring scours of BCMs remained similar to 2009. The occurrence of P.

australis did not differ significantly between SFMs and BCMs in 2010. Between 2009

and 2010 the percentage occurrence of Halophila spp. around SFMs increased from

56.25% to 70.85%, and changed from 56.25% to 46.9% around BCMs (Gladstone,

2010b). The mean leaf length of Halophila spp. inside mooring scours appeared to be

less than mean leaf length outside scours. The cover of sand was significantly greater in

the mooring scours of SFMs and BCMs than the surrounding seagrass beds (Gladstone,

2010b). All SFMs appeared to be functioning correctly, with the exception that part of

22

the shackle linking one SFM to the float rope was dragging in the sand (Gladstone,

2010b).

3.5 Moreton Bay, QLD (2010-2011)

3.5.1 Summary of the Trial Design

Three EFM designs were trialled at four different locations in Moreton Bay (total

of 12); these were the Seagrass Friendly Mooring System, EzyRider Mooring and

Seaflex (DEEDI, 2011).

The trial went for 18 months and all the moorings were serviced two times.

Questionnaires were developed to identify project and mooring issues. These

were completed by the trial participants after the first EFM service, and

interviews were also conducted with the trial participants, mooring designers and

contractors after the second EFM service (DEEDI, 2011).

The trial will monitor the effectiveness of the Seagrass Friendly Moorings to hold

boats in the conditions of Moreton Bay, the number and variety of benthic

animals (bottom dwelling animals), EFM impacts on nearby benthos, the EFM

causing the least damage to seagrass meadows, and the differences between areas

with moorings to nearby areas without moorings (DEEDI, 2011).

3.5.2 Summary of the results from the trial

There was installation issues associated with each mooring. At Tangalooma, the installer

of the SFM system did not have a long enough drill rig on the day to reach the sea bed of

the nominated location (approximately 10 m deep), therefore the SFM was put at 5m

(DEEDI, 2011). The EzyRider mooring at Point Halloran was shifted because it had too

large a swing area. A ‘locking bar’ was not supplied with the EzyRider, and also the

supplied shackles were not the recommended ‘green pin safety shackles’ (DEEDI, 2011).

The offset pin anchor system used on EzyRider moorings was not suitable for the trial

locations with silty sediments (Point Halloran and Dalpura Bay) (DEEDI, 2011).

Concrete blocks were used. The Seaflex mooring at Point Halloran was shifted as it had

too large a swing area. An anchor system does not come with Seaflex moorings (DEEDI,

2011).

Minor corrosion was evident in July 2011 on the steel shackles of SFMs; these were

replaced with stainless steel shackles (DEEDI, 2011). Electrolysis was identified between

galvanised shackles and their stainless steel mousing wire (DEEDI, 2011). A nyloc lock

nutted and bolted version was used as a replacement in July 2011 (precaution). A hawser

rope was worn through on a bow roller after an owner had not set up the mooring line

with the protective sheave on the bow roller (DEEDI, 2011). The swivel eye of the

EzyRider mooring at One Mile was found to be seized in October 2010. The long chain

was observed in October 2010 to pull the buoy rubbers down at low tide, causing the

chain to drag (DEEDI, 2011). A screw was missing from the plastic grommet at the

bottom of the buoy shaft of the Seaflex mooring at One Mile in October 2010 (DEEDI,

23

2011). The mooring rope twisted around the hawser in October 2010, due to the longer

rope length required in deeper water, and the rope dropping on low tide with little boat

activity (DEEDI, 2011). The mooring line at One Mile was observed to occasionally

tangle with the subsurface shock absorber in 2010. The mooring at Dalpura Bay broke

away in June 2011 as a shackle pin had worked loose despite shackle mousing (DEEDI,

2011). It is uncertain if use of ‘yellow pin’ rather than ‘green pin’ shackles may have

contributed to the EzyRider shackle failures (DEEDI, 2011).

3.6 Rottnest Island

3.6.1 Summary of the results from the trial

The extent of seagrass cover lost to moorings was monitored at Rottnest Island in

Western Australia, which is located 18km off the coast from Perth (Hastings et al., 1995);

shown in Figure 14. Approximately 18% of seagrass cover has been lost at Rottnest

Island as a result of boat moorings (Hastings et al., 1995). The fragmentation created by

the boat moorings at Rottnest Island caused the eroding edge to increase by 230% and

numerous ‘blowouts’ were observed between 1981 and 1992 (Hastings et al., 1995). In

1986 the Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) started to install cyclone moorings rather than

SFMs. These consisted of a three leg chain system similar to the EzyRider and Jeyco

Mooring designs (Hastings et al., 1995). Traditional block & chain moorings had an

average scour size of 39m2. The cyclone moorings reduced this to as low as 3m

2,

however the new moorings often created three scours, approximately 10m in diameter,

where the lower anchor chains were scouring the seagrass meadows (Hastings et al.,

1995).

Figure 14: The location and features of Rottnest island, WA; show the position of

Rottnest Island in relation to mainland Australia (Hastings et al., 1995).

24

4 DISCUSSION OF TRIALS

4.1 Seagrass Recovery

The trials found that seagrass recovery was generally positive around Seagrass Friendly

Moorings, particularly at Pittwater, Shoal Bay and Jervis Bay in NSW, and Moreton Bay

in QLD (Gladstone 2010b; Gladstone, 2011; Gladstone 2012; Demers et al., 2013).

Seagrass growth and recovery was often similar to the control sites which represented

natural undisturbed seagrass meadows. Traditional block and chain moorings (BCMs)

did not generally show an improvement in seagrass density and cover compared with the

SFMs (Gladstone 2010b; Gladstone, 2011; Demers et al., 2013). SFMs did not perform

well in the trials at Manly Cove where there was no sign of improvement (Gladstone,

2012); however this may be related to the seagrass, physical characteristics of the

landscape and other anthropogenic pressures (Gladstone, 2012). Monitoring results for

2013 have not yet been published. Environmentally-friendly cyclone moorings were

trialled alongside BCMs and SFMs at Jervis Bay in NSW. They created scours

approximately double the size of the scours located around BCMs, and therefore

performed worse than both of these moorings (Demers et al., 2013). Seagrass cover and

density was always lower around cyclone moorings. Large scours, often three per

mooring, also formed around cyclone moorings which were installed at Rottnest Island

(Hastings et al., 1995). The design of cyclone moorings will require significant

improvement before it can be considered environmentally friendly for use in seagrass,

particularly to prevent the lower anchor chains scouring the seabed (Hastings et al.,

1995).

The Seagrass Friendly Mooring, EzyRider Mooring and Seaflex Mooring were all

trialled at Moreton Bay in QLD (DEEDI, 2011). Detailed information on seagrass

recovery for each mooring trialled is limited, however the report by SEQ Catchments

(2013) states that the Seagrass Friendly Mooring design performed the best in the

environmental conditions of Moreton Bay. There was a significant recovery in seagrass

species around all three of the mooring designs (SEQ Catchments, 2013), and an

ecological study conducted by the University of Queensland (UQ) identified that benthic

assemblages were less “patchy” following the installation of EFMs (DEEDI, 2011). The

findings of the UQ study are relevant outside of Moreton Bay because the four sites had a

variety of environmental characteristics and benthic communities similar to other coastal

sites (DEEDI, 2011).

4.2 Technical Issues

The SFMs performed well in all trials with no major technical problems occurring in any

of the trials. Minor repairs were required, such as replacing corroded and loose shackles,

the prevention of electrolysis, the replacement of a worn through hawser rope, untangling

mooring lines from the subsurface shock absorber, and fixing the arm on one mooring

which was dragging (Gladstone 2010a; Gladstone, 2010b; DEEDI, 2011; Gladstone,

2011; Gladstone 2012; Demers et al., 2013). No failures of SFMs were recorded.

Installation issues, such as the inadequate drill rig used at Moreton Bay, will be

prevented in future installations with the creation of a quality management system. This

will involve training installers and maintainers and ensuring the correct equipment is

25

used (DEEDI, 2011). No moorings were pulled out of once they had been installed and

screwed into the seabed, which proves that SFMs are able to cope with most

environmental conditions (DEEDI, 2011). The screw anchor demonstrated that it could

exceed the 50m/s wind speeds and wave heights of 2m which are experienced in Moreton

Bay (DEEDI, 2011). There was no significant supply issues associated with SFMs. Some

of the mooring owners who participated in the Moreton Bay trials recommended that

parts could be accessed easier for EFMs if local industries were established; this has the

potential to create new jobs and prevent delays in the supply of spare parts (DEEDI,

2011). Boat owners were able to service their own SFM moorings or pay approximately

$300/year to get a trained contractor to complete the annual maintenance (DEEDI, 2011).

EzyRider Moorings were not used in the NSW trials; however they were installed and

monitored during the Moreton Bay trials between 2010-2011. Four EzyRider Moorings

were used and two of these failed as a result of the shackle pin becoming loose (DEEDI,

2011). Manufacturers and contractors of the EzyRider Mooring were made aware of this

problem and have since been investigating the cause. It is possible that the failures

occurred because the moorings were not supplied with the recommended ‘green pin

safety shackles’ (DEEDI, 2011). The ‘yellow pin’ shackles may not have been suitable

(DEEDI, 2011); however minor wearing of shackles is relatively common for most

mooring types (Bowman, 2008). Designers and manufacturers of the EzyRider Mooring

may need to consider reducing the vessel swing area, to a smaller area more suited to

congested waterways. Supplying incorrect parts or missing parts can be prevented by

recording each section of the mooring as it is packed.

A technical issue of concern with Seaflex Moorings is that they do not come with an

anchor system (DEEDI, 2011). This has the potential to inhibit their ability to prevent

scouring of seagrass meadows. The mooring licensee has to find an anchor for this

mooring system, which may consist of a cement block or anchor manufactured by a

different company, which is what occurred during the Moreton Bay trial. Although the

anchors chosen for the Seaflex system in Moreton Bay were effective (DEEDI, 2011),

an inexperienced boat owner may select an inadequate anchor. Another design

consideration for Seaflex manufacturers is the large swing area of this mooring system

which can cause vessels to become too close to each other, particularly in congested

waterways with high numbers of private moorings (DEEDI, 2011), which was also

experienced with the EzyRider design. One Seaflex mooring out of the four installed at

Moreton Bay failed as a result of a plastic sleeve becoming disconnected from the shaft,

which then caused the rope to break because it was rubbing against the shaft (DEEDI,

2011). As a result of this discovery Seaflex now installs 4 screws around the grommet

to prevent the sleeve becoming loose (DEEDI, 2011). At the time of the Moreton Bay

trials there were no installation instructions included, however the Seaflex has since

developed an inspection instruction manual in response to the trial (DEEDI, 2011).

26

5 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

The key information gathered from the stakeholder was categorised in Table 1.

Table 1: Key Responses from Stakeholders.

Key Responses from Stakeholders

Stakeholders who contributed to the following key points include:

Office of Boating Safety and Maritime

NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries NSW

NSW Department of Primary Industries – Port Stephens, Great Lakes

Marine Park

Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Premier and

Cabinet

Hunter-Central River Catchment Management Authority (CMA)

University of Technology Sydney (UTS)

Queensland Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing

On Water Marine Services pty ltd

Seaflex Moorings Australia

5.1 Costs

The lack of awareness about damage caused by BCMs and boater confidence,

such as concerns about mooring design and vessel protection, are issues that are

having a greater impact on the uptake of EFMs.

Agree that costs are a limiting factor. Lower cost through greater uptake,

improved technologies and increased numbers of trained contractors. Increased

awareness/demand for the EFMs will drive prices down.

Subsidies/ Initiatives:

o Could incorporate the value of seagrass lost (approximately $102 per sq.

metre for Posidonia). Over 10 or 20 years (longevity of most moorings)

this would add approximately $500 to $1000 to the annual cost of a

conventional mooring.

27

o Include first 5 years maintenance differential for EFMs.

o Culture change necessary through education programs, e.g. presentations

at boating clubs or mailing out EFM trial results to boat owners.

o A policy change requiring EFMs to be used in seagrass areas.

o Rebates/ one off full or partial payments for EFMs and their installation

would be a big incentive for boat owners.

o Introducing an environmental performance standard for moorings would

put EFMs and other moorings on a level playing field, increased

innovation and completion would lower costs.

o No-interest loans to purchase EFMs, and/or an environmental levy on

block and chain moorings.

o Deployment of a large number of EFMs at one time and also performing

maintenance at the same time will lower installation and maintenance

costs.

o Reduce or remove approval requirements/fees.

Life cycle cost of EFMs must be communicated effectively if it is released. Some

suppliers already provide life cycle costs.

5.2 Technical Issues – Installation and Maintenance

Maintenance:

Most stakeholders had no concerns about EFM suppliers installing and

maintaining moorings as long as they are qualified and ensure their products are

safe.

Maintenance is a key area of concern, e.g. trials in Port Stephens.

Development of a mandatory inspection form to be submitted each year,

regardless of mooring type.

Maintenance should be at least annually.

More sub-contractors need training in servicing the EFM designs.

Issues with Installation/ Design:

Limited success in some locations (e.g. Moreton Bay and Manly Cove East).

28

Designs need to be tested in varying wind and wave energy scenarios to determine

the areas they are suitable.

Marine growth has the potential to weigh the arm of the SFM down, therefore

regular maintenance is required.

Maintenance of EFMs by Boat Owners:

Some designs can be serviced by mooring owners. SFM owners can remove the

shock absorber themselves and reattach serviced one.

A “do-it-yourself” maintenance guide can be developed to keep costs down.

Components and check sheet now available for SFM owners so that they can do

their own servicing.

No- mooring owners shouldn’t maintain their own EFMs because the warranty

may be voided if inappropriate servicing or parts are used. This could damage the

public’s perception of EFMs and it is a potential safety/insurance risk.

5.3 Supply of EFMs and Parts

A sole supplier/ single design/ single operator doing maintenance can cause

potential issues.

Difficulty of sourcing parts will depend on the type of EFM used.

Increased numbers of EFMs will increase supply and lower costs.

5.4 Support for the use of EFMs as an alternative to BCMs

EFMs as an alternative to BCMs:

Agree that EFMs are a better alternative to BCMs because they help to prevent

scoured rings in seagrass meadows.

Designs that failed during the trials need further work and assessment before they

are considered as alternatives.

Use should be mandated in environmentally sensitive areas.

Limitations of EFMs:

Depth of water in relation to tide range.

29

Changes in the weight of the apparatus with fouling and part(s) of the apparatus

contacting the seabed.

The myth that EFMs can’t hold the same load could be dispelled through proper

testing.

Sediment depth for screwing required by SFMs.

Boat size.

Mix of EFMs and BCMs in the same area is not compatible due to different swing

sizes.

Rock seabed.

Customer Satisfaction:

Customer satisfaction improved through better maintenance, servicing,

responsiveness and improved designs.

5.5 Design

Standard/ accreditation process for installation and maintenance of EFMs:

If a standard/accreditation process for EFMs is developed it should be applied to

all mooring types.

Would help to maintain warranty, provide quality assurance and set operational

requirements. However, installation and maintenance will vary for different

designs and locations.

Is required to ensure environmental standards and OHS standards.

A standard/accreditation process is required for customer confidence. Also to

highlight specific requirements for different types of vessels/hulls and vessel

weights.

A standard/accreditation process for SFMs is being currently developed to ensure

the same level of expertise is always applied, and short training videos are being

developed for owners.

A standard/accreditation process shouldn’t be developed because the difference in

EFM systems is too big to put under one umbrella.

Designs which have worked well and which designs have not:

Des Maslen’s SFMs appear to work the best in most conditions and have failed the

30

least in comparison with other EFMs trialled.

Cyclone moorings have been proven to cause extensive damage.

It is dependent on the environment, location and boat type. All require

appropriate maintenance.

5.6 Recovery of Seagrass

Agree that EFMs contribute to seagrass recovery, especially Halophila and

Zostera. Recovery of Posidonia is likely to take much longer. Heavy wave

action, ongoing seabed erosion and sediment instability may inhibit effectiveness

of EFMs.

Limited recovery of seagrass during the trials in Manly Cove East.

Yes agree that EFMs contribute to the recovery and protection of seagrass,

however it will depend on the type of seagrass, the availability of seed, proximity

to non-impacted seagrass for roots to expand across the old impacted area and of

course water clarity.

In areas where seagrass might not have regrown, benthic creatures are re-

appearing.

5.7 Industry Development

Expansion of the EFM Industry

Reduce ‘red tape’ for new EFM suppliers and educate boat owners.

Agree to industry development – for example offering a rebating system for those

EFMs that have proved effective during trials; this may encourage additional

suppliers. The government should encourage new designs.

Creating franchises, e.g. Des Maslen’s SFM business.

Suppliers should have to tender for the work in each location/region.

Should expand the EFM industry to prevent it becoming monopolised.

A sunset clause would provide incentive for new designs.

Could be achieved by innovation grants and awards, and small business support

etc. However the government shouldn’t promote specific suppliers. Potential

market of 25,000 mooring which need replacing in Australia.

The current monopoly is only due to the success of SFMs

5.8 Legislation and Policy on EFMs

31

Policy Position on EFMs

Agree that the NSW Government should have a policy position on EFMs, but this

needs to be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

Should provide an outline of why seagrasses are affected by moorings, why they

need protection, the outcomes of the trials and lessons learned so far from

Australian trials, issues that mooring owners need to consider when selecting a

suitable EFM arising from the trials, priority moorings to consider conversion to

EFMs (e.g. those affecting seagrass and in particular endangered Posidonia

australis populations), how they can convert over to EFMs and any potential

incentives available.

Disagree that the NSW Government should have a policy position on EFMs;

shouldn’t insist on the use of EFMs while there is limited choice of

supplier/design/installer.

Legislative Change

Policy change should be adequate. Fisheries Management Act protects seagrass

well already.

Agree that there is a need for legislative change to adopt EFMs, to define

designated mooring areas (EFM only areas) and facilitate the approval and

deployment of EFMs in these areas.

Agree to legislative change – removal of the permit from RMS from the Fisheries

Management Act 1994 for BCMs.

‘Red Tape’

‘Red tape’ not the issue, it is a matter of willingness to introduce changes.

Little ‘red tape’ at present.

5.9 Future Improvements to EFM Trials

Limiting Factors

Some of the trials did not have a full set of ‘control’ and/or ‘impact’ moorings and

sites, and before and after measurements. Therefore it was difficult to compare the

EFM trial results.

Limited supplier availability of the most effective EFM design.

Limiting factors in recent trials - the Port Stephens project didn’t allow for

monitoring of controls, also Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) instructed

mooring operators to put new public courtesy SFMs in wrong spot so baseline

monitoring wasted.

32

Initially there was confusion how to operate the SFM system, however

demonstration days/ refinement of the design is improving this.

Position of EFMs e.g. SFMs in Manly Cove.

On Water Marine Services is sending letters to trial participants letting them know

about the mooring performance.

Improving Communication

Working with boating stakeholders to develop a communications strategy

outlining the outcomes of the trials and lessons learned.

Current survey of mooring holder participants in trials being undertaken to inform

how this could be done.

For example by presentations at meetings and boat shows.

Future Trials

Load testing on EFMs.

More moorings = increased sample size.

Trials of traditional moorings are required.

Continuing to examine the effectiveness of different EFM designs in differing

environmental conditions within the same estuary. For example wind and wave

conditions, light conditions and mooring usage rates.

Sufficient trials- Some EFMs have been in use for more than 25 years, lots of

information available.

33

6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES

6.1 Costs

Most stakeholders agree that the higher cost of EFMs is a limiting factor in their uptake,

however there are also several other important factors which have contributed to the slow

uptake. These include a lack of awareness from mooring owners about the environmental

damage caused by traditional moorings, confidence in design and vessel protection.

Higher cost for EFMs can be reduced by increasing EFM competition, improving

designs, improving awareness, incorporating the value of seagrass lost into the prices for

traditional moorings, and introducing a state wide policy which will strengthen the

market and lower costs. EFMs are more expensive because they have to go through a

much more rigorous engineering, testing and proving process, therefore BCMs should

also have to go through this process. The NSW Government should also consider

introducing incentives to encourage mooring owners to make the switch, such as a one

off full or partial payment/ rebate which includes installation. Awareness can be

improved through education, such as presentations at boating clubs, releasing trial

results, creating pamphlets or creating a dedicated EFM website. If life cycle costs for

EFMs are released they must be communicated in an effective manner, which does not

cause uptake to fall.

6.2 Technical Issues – Installation and Maintenance

The stakeholders responses indicate that maintenance should be conducted at least

annually and this should occur for all moorings regardless of the type. The stakeholders

highlight that technical problems which arise are generally cause by a lack of

maintenance. EFM designs which contain fewer wearing parts could also be developed,

such as the Seaflex design, which may require less servicing; however they would still

need to be monitored annually. A mandatory inspection form should be developed and

submitted at least annually. The stakeholders generally had no issue with EFM suppliers

installing and maintaining EFMs however they need to be qualified. There is a need for

more sub-contractors and suppliers which will prevent a potential bottleneck and

underservicing. A “do-it-yourself” maintenance guide could also be developed for

mooring owners; however EFM designs would have to be simplified. Technical issues

which need to be overcome include sand depth limitations and rocky seabeds, swing

areas, vessel sizes and marine growth weighing the mooring arm down on SFMs. Future

trials could test EFMs in new wind and wave scenarios.

6.3 Supply of EFMs and Parts

The main issues raised by the stakeholders in relation to the supply of EFMs and parts

was that there is a need to increase the numbers of trained contractors and prevent the

creation of a monopoly on supply. The stakeholders pointed out that increasing EFM

supply and uptake will result in an increase in the number of parts manufactured, and this

will also support struggling local manufacturers. If moorings are manufactured and

constructed in Australia it will create new jobs which are lost to overseas countries if

34

products are imported. For example the SFM produced by On Water Marine Services pty

ltd, is expanding and has a new distributer being set up in Queensland, which will create

jobs and improve supply.

6.4 Support for the use of EFMs as an alternative to Block & Chain

Moorings

All stakeholders agree that EFMs are a much better alternative to traditional block and

chain moorings which scour and fragment seagrass meadows. However, it is

recommended that only those EFMs which have been proven to be effective in protecting

seagrass and promoting recovery should be used as alternatives at this stage. Most

stakeholders agree that a moratorium on the use of BCMs should occur; however it is

recommended that prices be closer to parity first, the choice of supplier/installer should

be allowed, and there should be a period of grace for boat owners with BCMs to make

the switch. It should have a suitable system, such as the designated EFM areas used in

south-east Queensland. The NSW Government could also consider including the

economic cost in prices of existing BCMs, or incentives, such as discounts on boat

registration if an EFM is used. Boat owners are much more likely to purchase EFMs if

key stakeholders endorse EFMs and lead by example, such as replacing all public

moorings with EFMs. Customer service can be improved if there is regular

communication, design improvements, better maintenance and responsiveness.

6.5 Design

Stakeholder responses indicate that there should be a standard/ accreditation process.

This should be applied to all moorings, regardless of the type, to ensure construction,

installation and environmental standards are met. However, installation and maintenance

will vary depending on the design and location, so these factors should be taken into

account when developing mooring standards. Most stakeholders thought the SFM design

was the most suitable mooring due to the positive results it has produced during the trials,

for example in Qld and Jervis Bay; however regular maintenance is recommended.

Cyclone moorings produced extensive damage, and shouldn’t be used without further

improvements.

6.6 Recovery of Seagrass

All stakeholders believed that EFMs were contributing to the recovery and protection of

seagrass. Seagrass recovery around EFMs may be affected by the type of seagrass, the

availability of seed, and proximity to non-impacted seagrass. It was noted that EFMs are

particularly effective for the recovery of Halophila and Zostera, which are faster

colonising species, whilst the recovery of Posidonia is likely to take much longer. The

NSW Government should remove all BCMs within vulnerable seagrass meadows, such

as Posidonia, as a matter of urgency.

6.7 Industry Development

35

The majority of stakeholders agreed that the EFM industry needs to be developed further

in order for it not to become monopolised. Innovation grants, awards and support for

small businesses are potential methods that the NSW Government could use to develop

new EFM designs and manufacturers. The allocation, installation and lease of moorings,

should be managed by the NSW Government in environmentally sensitive areas, and

EFMs should be mandatory.

6.8 Legislation and Policy on EFMs

Almost all the stakeholders believed that the NSW Government should have a policy

position on the use of EFMs; however there is currently a limited choice of suppliers,

designs and installers. During the development of a policy on EFMs it will be vital to

consult regularly with important stakeholders, and boat owners. It is recommended that a

future policy on EFMs include priorities, such as vulnerable seagrass and locations,

incentives, sunset clauses, outline why seagrass is impacted by moorings, overview of

Australian trial results, issues that mooring owners should consider when choosing a

EFM, and outline what is considered an EFM. There was a mixed response from

stakeholders regarding whether or not legislative change is needed. A legislative change

could include the removal of the permit for BCMs in the Fisheries Management Act

1994, which is issued by RMS. Also a legislative change would help to define designated

mooring areas, which would only contain EFMs and assist in the approval and

deployment of EFMs to these areas. However, it was also highlighted that the Fisheries

Management Act 1994 protects seagrass well already, so there may only be an immediate

need for a policy change. The NSW Government will have to take into consideration

both options. There was also a mixed response to whether or not red tape should be

reduced, however it was pointed out that it is more of a question about willingness to

make changes.

6.9 Future Improvements to EFM Trials

A number of limiting factors were identified by the stakeholders from the recent EFM

trials. Some of the trials did not have a full set of ‘control’ and/ or ‘impact’ moorings,

and measurements from before and after. During the recent EFM trials at Port Stephens

RMS instructed mooring owners to position courtesy SFMs in the wrong spot, which

prevented baseline monitoring. The position of EFMs was also a limiting factor, e.g.

Manly Cove trial. There can be confusion for mooring owners how to use an EFM. It is

recommended that future trials be conducted to test whether EFMs can hold the same

amount of weight as traditional moorings (which is often believed by boat owners),

future trials should include a greater sampling size of EFMs and BCMs, and in a range of

wind, wave and light conditions. Improved communication is essential, such as a

partnership developed with boating stakeholders, which includes a communications

strategy.

36

REFERENCES

Alkira Marine Services. (2013) What parts may need to be replaced on my mooring?

Retrieved 15/05/2013, from

http://www.alkiramarineservices.com.au/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=36488&Q=

Bell, S.S., Brooks, R.A., Robbins, D., Fonseca, M.S., & Hall, M.O. (2001). Faunal

response to fragmentation in seagrass habitats: implications for seagrass

conservation. Biological Conservation, 100, 115-123.

BoatMoorings.com (2013) Our Exclusive Eco Mooring. Retrieved 22/05/2013, from

http://www.boatmoorings.com/

Bostrom, C., Jackson, E.L., & Simenstad, C.A. (2006). Seagrass landscapes and their

effects on associated fauna: A review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci, 68, 383-403.

Bowline marine. (2013) New Moorings. Retrieved 21/05/2013, from

http://www.bowlinemarine.com.au/Moorings/NewMoorings.aspx

Bowman, L. (2008). Seagrass friendly boat moorings: Feasibility assessment. Final

report to the NSW Department of Primary Industries – Fisheries Conservation

& Aquaculture. Port Stephens, NSW.

Carlo, G.D., & McKenzie, L. (2011). Seagrass Syllabus – A training manual for

resource managers. USA: Conservation International.

Carruthers, T.J., Dennison, W.C., Longstaff, B.J., Waycott, M., Abal, E.G., McKenzie,

L.J., & Lee Long, W.J. (2002). Seagrass Habitats of Northeast Australia: Models

of Key Processes and Controls. Bulletin of Marine Science, 71, 1153-1169.

Demers, M.A., Davis, A.R. & Knott, N.A. (2013). A comparison of the impact of

‘Seagrass-friendly’ boat mooring systems on Posidonia australis. Marine

Environmental Research, 83, 54-62.

Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI). (2011).

Environmentally-friendly moorings trials in Moreton Bay. Final report to SEQ

Catchments. Brisbane, Australia.

Environment Protection Agency. (1998). Changes in Seagrass Coverage and Links to

Water Quality off the Adelaide Metropolitan Coastline. Final report to

Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs. Adelaide.

EzyRider mooring. (2013) EzyRider mooring – How it works. Retrieved 22/05/2013,

from http://www.ezyridermooring.com/index.html?art=1

Fairfull, S. (2013). Fisheries NSW Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation

and Management. Wollongbar: NSW Department of Primary Industries

(Fisheries).

Fisheries Scientific Committee (FSC). (2010). Final Determination to list the seagrass

Posidonia australis in Port Hacking, Botany Bay, Sydney Harbour, Pittwater,

37

Brisbane Waters and Lake Macquarie (NSW) as ENDANGERED

POPULATIONS. Final report to NSW Department of Primary Industries. Port

Stephens.

Gartner, A., Tuya, F., Lavery, P.S., & McMahon, K. (n.d.). Habitat preferences of

macroinvertebrate fauna among seagrasses with varying structural forms. Final

report to Coastal Marine Ecosystems Research Group. Western Australia.

Gladstone, W. (2009). Effectiveness of Seagrass-Friendly Moorings (Pittwater). Final

report to the School of Environmental and Life Sciences. Newcastle.

Gladstone, W. (2010b). Effectiveness of Seagrass-Friendly Moorings (Pittwater). Final

report to the School of Environmental and Life Sciences. Newcastle.

Gladstone, W. (2010a). Seagrass Friendly Moorings in Manly Cove – Report of 2010

Monitoring. Final report to Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Authority. Sydney.

Gladstone, W. (2011). Monitoring of Seagrass Friendly Moorings in Shoal Bay –

Report of 2010 Monitoring. Final report to OnWater Marine Services Pty Ltd.

Sydney.

Gladstone, W. (2012). Seagrass Friendly Moorings in Manly Cove – Final report of

2012 Monitoring. Final report to Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Authority.

Sydney.

Jeyco. (2013) Moorings in a Box. Retrieved 22/05/2013, from

http://www.jeyco.com.au/products-and-services/mooring-systems/mooring-in-a-

box.html

Kirkman, H. (1997). Seagrasses of Australia. Final report to the Department of the

Environment. Canberra.

Lawrence, A., Baker, E. & Love, C. (2012). Optimising and managing coastal carbon -

Comparative sequestration and mitigation opportunities across Australia’s

landscapes and land uses. Final report to the Fisheries Research &

Development Cooperation. Sutherland.

McArthur, L., Hyndes, G., & Babcock, R. (2007). Western rock lobster in ecosystem

processes of south-western Australia. Final report to Department of

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra.

McComb, A.J. & Dennison, W.C. (1999). Case Study 18.3 – Seagrasses: Successful

Marine Macrophytes. Retrieved March 1, 2013, from University of Queensland

Web site: http://plantsinaction.science.uq.edu.au/edition1/?q=content/case-

study-18-3-seagrasses-successful-marine-macrophytes

McDowell, L.M., Green, D., & Griffante, D. (2009). Adelaide Coastal Waters:

Information Sheet No.2 – Seagrass health. Adelaide: Environmental Protection

Authority South Australia.

McKenzie, L. (2007). Relationships between seagrass communities and sediment

properties along the Queensland coast. Final report to Queensland Department

of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Cairns.

38

McKenzie, L. (2008). Seagrass-Watch: Seagrass Educators Handbook. Cairns:

Seagrass-Watch HQ

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI). (2013) Activities requiring a

permit. Fishing and Aquaculture - NSW DPI. Retrieved 14/ 04/2013, from

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/protecting-habitats/activities-

requiring-a-permit

NSW Government. (2012) NSW Legislation. Fisheries Management Act 1994 No 38.

Retrieved 26/02/13, from

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+38+1994+cd+0+N

NSW Waterways Authority. (2003). Lake Macquarie Mooring Management Plan. Final

report to NSW Government Roads and Maritime Services. Sydney.

On Water Maine Services. (2013) Seagrass Friendly Mooring Systems. Retrieved

18/05/2013, from http://www.seagrassmooring.com.au/id17.html

Orth, R. J., Carruthers, T.J., Dennison, W.C., Duarte, C.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Heck Jr,

K.L.,…Williams, S.L. (2006). A Global Crisis for Seagrass Ecosystems.

BioScience, 56, 1-12.

Seaflex AB. (2013). Seaflex – The Environmental Mooring Solution. Sweden: Seaflex

AB

Seagrass-Watch. (2010). Seagrass-Watch E-Bulletin: Seagrass friendly moorings

trialed in Queensland (Australia). Queensland: Seagrass-Watch.

SEQ Catchments. (2013) Environmentally Friendly Moorings. Retrieved 21/05/2013,

from http://www.seqcatchments.com.au/case-studies/mooring-trial-to-end-crop-

circles-in-moreton-bay

Shafer, D. (2002). Recommendations to minimize potential impacts to seagrasses from

single-family residential dock structures in the Pacific Northwest. Final report

to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seattle.

Short, F.T., Polidoro, B., Livingstone, S.R., Carpenter, K.E., Bandeira, S., Bujang, J.S.

(2011). Extinction Risk Assessment of the World’s Seagrass Species. Biological

Conservation, 144, 1961-1971.

SIMS. (n.d.) Picture of Seagrass Friendly Mooring. Retrieved 22/05/2013, from

http://www.sims.org.au/

Stewart, M. & Fairfull, S. (2007). Primefacts: Seagrasses. Final report to NSW

Department of Primary Industries. Port Stephens, NSW.

Umwelt. (n.d.). Seagrass Meadows and their inhabitants – Edmunds Bay. NSW: Office

of the Lake Macquarie and Catchment Coordinator.

Waters Marine. (2013) Moorings –Eco Mooring System. Retrieved 22/05/2013, from

http://www.watersmarine.com.au/mooring.ews

West, R.J. (2011). Impacts of Recreational Boating Activities on the Seagrass Posidonia

in SE Australia. Wetlands (Australia), 26, 3-13.

39

Whitsunday Moorings and Marine Constructions. (2013) Moorings. Retrieved

21/05/2013, from http://whitsundaymoorings.com.au/moorings.htm

Zann, L.P. (1996). The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia

(SOMER): process, findings and perspectives. Ocean & Coastal Management,

33, 63-86.

40

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Letter to Stakeholders

41

42

Appendix 2

Stakeholder Questionnaire

Issue

Stakeholder Response

Costs

Traditional moorings cost between $750 -$1500 to install and approximately $200 a year to maintain, whilst Environmentally Friendly Moorings (EFMs) are generally more expensive (e.g. approximately $3000 and $300 annual maintenance). From the trials undertaken in Australia to date, cost appears to be a key factor limiting the uptake of EFMs. Do you agree or disagree with this comment? Why? Can you advise what you think can be done in order to reduce the costs of EFMs?

What potential subsidies and other initiatives do you think could be used to increase the uptake of EFMs?

Should the life cycle costing of EFMs be made available to boat owners and would this help increase uptake of EFMs?

Technical issues – Installation and maintenance

An issue arising from recent trials of EFMs is the need for regular and ongoing annual maintenance checks and servicing which is similar to traditional block and chain moorings. Can you see any issues for boaters with the need for the EFM to be checked on an annual basis? Are maintenance costs comparable to current moorings?

Can you see any issues with EFM suppliers installing and maintaining EFMs?

Do you think the trials to date have shown that EFMs are an effective alternative to traditional block and chain moorings? Why or why not? If not, what else do you think EFM suppliers can do to improve their design and use?

43

Do you think that EFMs can be maintained by mooring owners? Why or why not?

Supply of EFMs and parts

Are the parts required for the maintenance of EFMs easy to obtain compared with the ability of sourcing parts for traditional swing moorings? If yes, how could EFM suppliers improve the availability of parts?

Do EFM suppliers provide adequate instruction manuals which can be used by mooring contractors or mooring owners?

Do you have any further comments to make regarding the installation and maintenance of EFMs?

Support for the use of EFMs as an alternative to traditional swing moorings

Do you think that EFMs can be used as an effective alternative to traditional swing moorings? Why or why not? Are you aware of any particular limitations to their use?

During the trials of EFMs in Qld and NSW participant satisfaction with EFMs was dependent upon the issues encountered. How do you think EFMs can be improved to enhance customer satisfaction?

How do you think EFMs can be promoted as an effective alternative to traditional swing moorings?

Would you support a moratorium or similar process that restricted the use of traditional swing moorings in seagrass? Why or why not? What other mechanisms could be used to encourage the uptake of EFMs?

Design

Should a standard/accreditation process for installation and maintenance of EFMs be developed? If yes, why?

Which EFMs do you think work well and which ones didn’t work well? Why?

44

Recovery of seagrass

Do you think EFMs contribute to the recovery and protection of seagrass? Why or why not?

Industry development

An issue arising during the trials was concerns that EFMs are monopolised by one main supplier. Should the government assist with the expansion of EFM suppliers? If yes, how could this be done?

Legislation and policy on EFMs

Should the NSW Government have a policy position on the use of EFMs? If yes, what should this policy include and why?

Should government intervention / facilitation occur to increase EFM uptake?

Do you think there is a need for legislative change to adopt EFMs? If yes, what would you suggest to change the legislation?

Can regulatory red tape be reduced to enhance the uptake of EFMs? How?

Future improvements to EFM trials

Are you aware of any key limiting factors with

the EFM trials conducted to date? What were

they?

Previous trial participants were concerned that they had to use their own insurance to cover any failures during the trial. Should the NSW Government provide insurance cover to encourage future trial participants?

Is improved communication with boat owners needed on the outcomes of the current trials? How should this be done?

Should more trials be undertaken and run for

longer periods of time?

Should the EFMs be tested in other environmental conditions to determine their strengths and weaknesses?

General comments

45

Do you have any other comments to add about this issue?

Thank you for your time – please forward this completed questionnaire to

Nathan Outerbridge at email: n.outerbridge.10@student.scu.edu.au